Geofencing has a downside, too. While you might think it enhances aviation safety, it may not do so at all. Planes spend so little time within flying/control range of commonplace drones that, when you read about a "possible drone strike" always bet against it.
Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there.
I'm not sure I agree with geofencing, but it's also true that drone operators appear to be, by and large, acting like complete jerks and someone needs to get the message across somehow.
The message shows be sent by levying fines, mandating community work and putting restrictions from operating drones for X years for anyone caught being a jerk.
>Planes spend so little time within flying/control range of commonplace drones that
It depends where you're talking about. Close to airports is the major issue. 2nm from the runway planes will be at 600ft, which is well within the range of drones.
>Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there.
We're talking about voluntary geofencing here, by the companies themselves.
We're talking about voluntary geofencing here, by the companies themselves.
Much as I like the idea of keeping drones away from planes, just look at how governments have abused other "voluntary" restriction systems. For example, ISPs install filters for ostensibly noble causes, then governments commandeer them for more questionable uses.
Which governments of civilized, democratic countries have commandeered ISP's filters for questionable uses? If you're talking about the UK porn filter, it is the other way around: government has instituted a law saying they have to do it.
Even if it were a law, I don't see the issue that you are arguing. You're essentially saying "I don't want a law that says drones are banned by default from controlled airspace, because the government might change it's mind and also ban drones from places that embarrass the government", which is just another slippery slope argument.
Are you saying you don't want any laws at all, and people should just be able to do anything they want?
> Sounds like a slippery slope argument. [...] it is the other way around: government has instituted a law saying they have to do it.
Yeah, that's the point. When the technology has been demonstrated to work (even if badly) in some areas it's suddenly mandated in other areas.
Now we have a technology that was so-so at blocking unwanted porn being used for everything from catching pedophiles to checking for intel leaks. A false-positive in porn blocking was annoying, in pedo-detection it can ruin lives. Worse, when functioning properly it can prop up repressive regimes.
> Are you saying you don't want any laws at all, and people should just be able to do anything they want?
Is that the only choice? Egregious laws that harm innocents and don't actually solve the issue versus no law at all? Well in that case, it's clear. No law is better than being stuck with bad law that doesn't actually help...
But thankfully those aren't the only options. We can push back against bad laws (useless, abusive, etc) and accept the good ones.
> "I don't want a law that says drones are banned by default from controlled airspace, because the government might change it's mind and also ban drones from places that embarrass the government", which is just another slippery slope argument.
No, we don't want useless technological measures mandated that claim to block drones from airports, but fail to actually help in a real security context. Because those useless security rules have only one real purpose - banning civilians from inconvenient things.
Laws, like lines of code, have a distinct cost and we should only add the ones that will actually help.
>No, we don't want useless technological measures mandated that claim to block drones from airports, but fail to actually help in a real security context. Because those useless security rules have only one real purpose - banning civilians from inconvenient things.
It's not useless. Do you fly planes? If you look at the youtube video I posted elsewhere in this thread you'll see that the guy wanted to fly near the airport on the beach, but the geo fence wouldn't let him. The beach is <0.5nm from the end of the runways, so planes will be at <300ft crossing the beach. I fly there myself, and I don't want to hit a drone and risk losing the engine or having it crash through the windshield into my face.
Unfortunately we need laws like this because people aren't responsible, as that youtube video proves.
Useless because it's billed as stopping terrorists. Let's be honest, consider ham radios; the mandated but easily bypassed hardware lockouts are more useful for market segmentation than preventing bad guys from broadcasting on ATC frequencies.
So as a convenience feature that told me I the conditions for where I'm flying, it'd be great. And then it'd only need to be 4-nines, and wouldn't have to have fail-proof lockouts, etc.
But as a major portion of the defense of our air fleet - no. That's ridiculous. If we're that worried we need to figure out something to actually make us safer, not add another perpetual layer of theater.
Yeah, that's the point. When the technology has been demonstrated to work (even if badly) in some areas it's suddenly mandated in other areas.
I'm not sure that seeing an actual implementation is required for politician to have harebrained ideas. Besides, as others have pointed out, geofencing has already been implemented by DJI, so we're past that phase anyway.
Strange, I'm having a hard time thinking of a single US government program that hasn't expanded far beyond the original justification. Bureaucracies expand, water is wet. A classic example of a USG switcheroo would be the social security number being used for identification purposes beyond social security administration. A more contemporary example would be the NSA providing intel to the DEA for domestic law enforcement, which I'm sure wasn't part of the founding mission statement.
> Which governments of civilized, democratic countries...
So only a true Scotsman?
> Are you saying you don't want any laws...
Are you saying that if somebody caused an accident with a drone, then prosecutors would just throw up their hands? We already have enough laws on the books to charge anybody for anything. If causing a horrible accident isn't enough of disincentive for a drone operator then I doubt that they'd pay any attention to the FAA.
Sure, and creation of a law would be voluntary on the part of the government. The end result for the owner is the same - an involuntary restriction of their drone's software.
We don't need any more encouragement of device lockdown, treacherous computing, and the general erosion of ownership.
I'm sympathetic to the criticality of airport approaches, but also sympathetic to people flying drones above their own property to arbitrary heights while informing ATC (perhaps it's time to revisit that previous uncompensated aeronautical space grab). But this balance is orthogonal to what I'm arguing about.
In any industry that adopts treacherous computing, it spreads like cancer. Phones, cars, entertainment, payment cards. Assumptions of the user being hostile get baked into the design and business models, and must be fortified ever-harder over time. In a computing-based world, perverted cultures that mandate closed devices are simply incompatible with individual autonomy and self-reliance. "Selling" a device while retaining control over it is basically fraud.
Pragmatically, I'd be in favor of the "default config" coming with built-in geofencing to avoid thoughtless idiotic situations. But then the ability to change and fully remove that code must also be provided, ideally through well-documented reflashing process. Anything less creates the unavoidable centralizing path down the slippery slope, and from the users' perspective it hardly matters whether it's the manufacturer or government driving the process.
Yes, it's already illegal, but most people aren't aware of - or don't care about - the laws. The youtube vid I posted here was < 1nm from the end of the runway at CYAZ, which means planes are at <300ft. The only reason the guy wasn't creating a hazard is because the geofence in his Phantom wouldn't let him use his drone there, so he had to move a few miles down Long Beach.
Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there.